Anonymous wrote:Counting down the months until I can leave this hellhole when my last kid graduates. When we moved here in 2008, the County was safe, had good schools, and taxes were manageable. Fast forward almost 20 years and we have a failed school district, never-ending taxes, a checked out police force (thanks BLM!), and businesses flee for Virginia. This County will be a complete basket case (think Detroit) by 2040. Get out while you can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Council is discussing using the money from the ITOC repeal for MCPS operating costs instead of MCPS capital costs. MCPS loses some (all?) HVAC, roof replacement, outdoor play space funding.

That ITOC repeal is a one time thing. But now they want to build it in to ongoing MCPS operating expenses? And they face a fiscal cliff in FY2028 anyway?

Another crappy patchwork "fix." I hope all of you who voted on referendum for super majority vote on the Council for budget items knows that in practice, it has actually INCREASED expenditures. Because nobody can come to that large of a consensus.

It’s not a fix at all. They will raise income taxes on low wage earners in short order to close the gap.

No. There's no money from low income workers? That makes no sense.

There will be a savings plan in the middle of the year and probably furloughs.

By raising the rates in the lower brackets they will also be capturing more money from higher earners. They’re going to need every penny. Bottom line is they’ll continue to protect the commercial property owners from increases while also preserving their tax abatements. Residents pay the full price.

No. The new progressive income tax increases the rate to the state max of 3.3% on those making over $150k. And that's marginal. The super wealthy pay a huge chuck of our entire income revenue stream. There is no way to increase it more. Trying to overturn this new lower income tax for lower earners won't bring in anything significant

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando and Mink are dying to increase taxes even more!

Give me a break. They all voted to spend the money. Let’s not forget Andrew Friedson’s impassioned defense of $18 million for the green bank and $2 million for the kid museum.

I'm just going by what their budget approval speeches say! Listen along and learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando and Mink are dying to increase taxes even more!

Give me a break. They all voted to spend the money. Let’s not forget Andrew Friedson’s impassioned defense of $18 million for the green bank and $2 million for the kid museum.

Anonymous wrote:Jawando and Mink are dying to increase taxes even more!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The reason our county is broke is because of emotional responses like this. Math doesn’t have feelings.

Every community needs housing for people with a variety of incomes. That's not an emotional response, that's a reality. You suggesting we shouldn't have renters in MoCo is not a math-based assertion, it's just ignorant and hateful.

There’s a lot of daylight between “appropriately balanced” and “shouldn’t have” any. Fight the emotional reflex.

What "balance" would you like?

DP. Since the local budget is driven mostly by the school budget, large commercial apartment complexes don't pay enough in taxes for the school resources they consume. Outdated assessments and tax forgiveness for developers just exacerbates the problem.

okay so you don't like renters. What percentage of renters versus homeowners will you tolerate?

Not many. The 220 unit apartment building near me pays $90,000/year in taxes. That's $409 per unit every year for all the county services they use.

So the "balance" you want is zero renters?

Not zero, but high density housing needs to pay their fair share in property taxes.

The apartment building near me pays $2,500 per unit which seems fair to me. My tax bill is at least 3 times as large as most of those units and includes a backyard. We pay less than 3 times as much.

The buildings that pay less usually have subsidized units in them which is important. We need housing for people with low incomes. If you don't like that we are paying developers to provide them, feel free to advocate for the government to construct more low income housing. But the notion that people with low incomes should just not live here is sociopathic and ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Council is discussing using the money from the ITOC repeal for MCPS operating costs instead of MCPS capital costs. MCPS loses some (all?) HVAC, roof replacement, outdoor play space funding.

That ITOC repeal is a one time thing. But now they want to build it in to ongoing MCPS operating expenses? And they face a fiscal cliff in FY2028 anyway?

Another crappy patchwork "fix." I hope all of you who voted on referendum for super majority vote on the Council for budget items knows that in practice, it has actually INCREASED expenditures. Because nobody can come to that large of a consensus.

It’s not a fix at all. They will raise income taxes on low wage earners in short order to close the gap.

No. There's no money from low income workers? That makes no sense.

There will be a savings plan in the middle of the year and probably furloughs.

By raising the rates in the lower brackets they will also be capturing more money from higher earners. They’re going to need every penny. Bottom line is they’ll continue to protect the commercial property owners from increases while also preserving their tax abatements. Residents pay the full price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Council is discussing using the money from the ITOC repeal for MCPS operating costs instead of MCPS capital costs. MCPS loses some (all?) HVAC, roof replacement, outdoor play space funding.

That ITOC repeal is a one time thing. But now they want to build it in to ongoing MCPS operating expenses? And they face a fiscal cliff in FY2028 anyway?

Another crappy patchwork "fix." I hope all of you who voted on referendum for super majority vote on the Council for budget items knows that in practice, it has actually INCREASED expenditures. Because nobody can come to that large of a consensus.

It’s not a fix at all. They will raise income taxes on low wage earners in short order to close the gap.

No. There's no money from low income workers? That makes no sense.

There will be a savings plan in the middle of the year and probably furloughs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Council is discussing using the money from the ITOC repeal for MCPS operating costs instead of MCPS capital costs. MCPS loses some (all?) HVAC, roof replacement, outdoor play space funding.

That ITOC repeal is a one time thing. But now they want to build it in to ongoing MCPS operating expenses? And they face a fiscal cliff in FY2028 anyway?

Another crappy patchwork "fix." I hope all of you who voted on referendum for super majority vote on the Council for budget items knows that in practice, it has actually INCREASED expenditures. Because nobody can come to that large of a consensus.

It’s not a fix at all. They will raise income taxes on low wage earners in short order to close the gap.

No. There's no money from low income workers? That makes no sense.

There will be a savings plan in the middle of the year and probably furloughs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the Council is discussing using the money from the ITOC repeal for MCPS operating costs instead of MCPS capital costs. MCPS loses some (all?) HVAC, roof replacement, outdoor play space funding.

That ITOC repeal is a one time thing. But now they want to build it in to ongoing MCPS operating expenses? And they face a fiscal cliff in FY2028 anyway?

Another crappy patchwork "fix." I hope all of you who voted on referendum for super majority vote on the Council for budget items knows that in practice, it has actually INCREASED expenditures. Because nobody can come to that large of a consensus.

It’s not a fix at all. They will raise income taxes on low wage earners in short order to close the gap.

Anonymous wrote:So the Council is discussing using the money from the ITOC repeal for MCPS operating costs instead of MCPS capital costs. MCPS loses some (all?) HVAC, roof replacement, outdoor play space funding.

That ITOC repeal is a one time thing. But now they want to build it in to ongoing MCPS operating expenses? And they face a fiscal cliff in FY2028 anyway?

Another crappy patchwork "fix." I hope all of you who voted on referendum for super majority vote on the Council for budget items knows that in practice, it has actually INCREASED expenditures. Because nobody can come to that large of a consensus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The property tax on housing is a major component of local government revenues and of
consumers’ housing costs. This study uses newly available data from the 2001 Residential
Finance Survey to investigate the incidence of the residential property tax. Of particular interest
is the estimation and interpretation of differences in tax rates by location, property value,
structure type, and tenure form.
The study finds that multifamily rental housing bears an effective tax rate at least 25
percent higher than the rate on single-family owner-occupied housing for the nation overall. The
level of taxation, and the apartment/house differential, varies considerably from place to place.
Much, but not all, of the differential is associated with the lower property values per unit of
apartments compared to houses. The gap in tax rates appears to have arisen during the 1990s, as
tax rates of apartments and houses were nearly identical in 1991. The paper concludes that the
residential property tax, as implemented, promotes low density development, disproportionately
burdens lower valued properties, and may impose higher taxes on apartment residents than on
homeowners of identical incomes.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/w05-2.pdf

Hey champ. Rents can only rise if the market will bear higher rents.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

Input cost models neglect the role of the overall market in setting rents. The studies you cite attribute rent increases to taxes without other evidence and without ruling out other drivers of rent increases.

Nobody is claiming that taxes are the only factor affecting rents. Arguing that taxes don’t affect rental prices is nuts.

+1 the article PP cited offers the following finding.related.to housing costs (not specific to rental housing): "We find that average income growth relates strongly to house price growth and that house prices generally keep pace with average income. " It does not find that rent increases are only due to increases in household incomes or that property taxes do not affect rents.

Ask your chat bot if rents are set based on a cost plus reasonable profit model or if rents are set based on what the market will bear. Oh wait. I already have. It offered the following finding: Apartment rents are based almost entirely on what the market will bear, not on a cost-plus-profit model.

Lol this is AI making people dumber in action

lol unless you’re a major landlord or work for AOBA the joke’s on you because your misunderstanding how your rent is priced is causing you to advocate for their interests instead of your own. Even more so when it comes to policies that have a more direct effect on your rent like rent stabilization.

Ok we'll just take you and your "chat bot" at your word over that of published studies with named authors

Hey champ. You won’t see this one in your YIMBY echo chamber but here’s a study with named authors. It even has their pictures.

https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2026/02/housing-affordability-and-housing-demand/

The chat bot guy was the one who who put property taxes and rent into google and then pasted long excerpts that he didn’t understand along with chat bot text summarizing this study.

I already saw this when you first posted it. Talks about a relationship between income and housing prices. It does not examine the relationship between rents and property taxes.

DP. Property tax is not the sole expense in renting a property. While a relationship might exist, the landlord can choose to reduce spending in property improvements and repairs. And the landlord might just need to eat the loss in terms of less profit.

A relationship does exist. See up thread for studies showing this relationship.

Yes, markets are complicated and landlords cannot just get whatever price they want for a unit, but property taxes absolutely factor into the equation.

Property taxes may factor into what a landlord wants to receive in rent but they have no bearing on the price the market sets for the unit.

Just stop. You are wrong. I am a landlord and I know this business. If landlords can’t make a profit because taxes go up then units will be removed from the market and newly available units will not be placed on the rental market they will be sold since they are now unprofitable. This reduction in available rental units will increase the price of the remaining units due to limited supply and eventually the market will rise enough to sufficiently cover the tax increase and thus supply will increase and level off *at a higher price because of the cost of taxes* this is basic economics.